40% of Illegals Chose to Run From Trials When Given Grace

An in-depth study just published by the Center for Immigration Studies revealed just how disturbingly lax immigration enforcement was under President Barack Obama, largely indicated by the astounding number of illegal immigrants who failed to appear for hearings in immigration courts.

After crunching decades worth of statistics and speaking with immigration judges across the country, Judge Mark H. Metcalf, formerly of the Miami Immigration Court, determined that nearly 40 percent of illegal immigrants permitted to remain in the U.S. pending a deportation hearing — “catch and release” — never showed up for their hearings, the highest failure to appear rate of all types of courts across the country.

The judges interviewed by Metcalf “described a system plunged into turmoil by appointees at the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security who ignored statutes, precedent, and regulation and imposed policies that dramatically increased backlogs and nearly halted adjudication.”

They further described the misuse of “prosecutorial discretion” and “administrative closure” to justify refusing to prosecute criminals or granting continuances in lieu of trials as big contributors to the problem.

Incredibly, the study revealed that the official numbers released publicly — when the numbers were even released at all — were often far lower than actual numbers, sometimes nearly by half, largely due to manipulation used to determine failure to appear rates.

Compounding the problem even further was the discovery that even when illegal immigrants were ordered deported, either in person or “in absentia” if they skipped it, that deportation more often than not would never occur, leaving illegals with a deportation order to remain in the country.

Frustratingly, even when those individuals would be rearrested, they would not face additional charges for having failed to appear previously or for avoiding or ignoring a valid deportation order. The same could not be said for American citizens who tried the same thing in other types of courts in this country.

The study concluded by offering four major recommendations to improve the immigration court system, the first of which would be the removal of all appeals or other relief efforts and permanent disbarment from the country for those illegals who absconded from a deportation hearing or were ordered deported in absentia, with an exception for those who can provide assistance in national security matters or the prosecution of federal crimes.

The study also recommended that those ordered deported be held in custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials until the deportation takes place or the order is overturned by the court through appeal.

Furthermore, it was suggested that immigration officials be given less discretion to grant stays of removal for the worst levels of criminal illegals, again barring exceptional circumstances.

Finally, the study called for a thorough re-examination of immigration policies for individuals from Specially Designated Countries — nations known to harbor or sponsor terrorists — ensuring that such people are thoroughly vetted and pose no risk to American citizens.